The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Circadian clocks, feeding time, and metabolic homeostasis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2015.00112 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georgios K. Paschos |
| Abstract |
Metabolic processes exhibit diurnal variation from cyanobacteria to humans. The circadian clock is thought to have evolved as a time keeping system for the cell to optimize the timing of metabolic events according to physiological needs and environmental conditions. Circadian rhythms temporally separate incompatible cellular processes and optimize cellular and organismal fitness. A modern 24 h lifestyle can run at odds with the circadian rhythm dictated by our molecular clocks and create desynchrony between internal and external timing. It has been suggested that this desynchrony compromises metabolic homeostasis and may promote the development of obesity (Morris et al., 2012). Here we review the evidence supporting the association between circadian misalignment and metabolic homeostasis and discuss the role of feeding time. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,012,970
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,273
of 18,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,583
of 271,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#4
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.